From experience setting something like this up 13 years ago, probably the most successful way for Antigua to do this would be to contract out to a commercial company (incorporated in Antigua, and with no US principals or assets; ideally as Antiguan as possible), for a set fee of $21mm/yr, and to keep warrants or other potential upside (say, profit sharing in years 5+ of a 10+ year contract?)

That way the company can make arbitrary amounts of money, with some value eventually accruing to Antigua, while remaining within the WTO definition.

The company could choose to value its earnings pretty much arbitrarily (either really high, based on retail price times number of downloads; or really low, based on bulk data transfer prices).

The big issue would be keeping international connectivity up -- while the WTO allows Antigua to do this, IIRC most of Antigua's Internet access is on a couple of cable systems owned by non-Antiguan companies (mainly C&W plc); the US could make life crappy for those companies. There are some international law issues with cutting off all communications and with the contracts for service on these cables otherwise, though, but it could be messy.

Ultimately it would be cheaper for the US to just give Antigua an extra $21mm/yr in foreign aid in exchange for them waiving their rights under this judgment. This could be buried in some kind of educational or bilateral trade agreement or something.

Ultimately it might be cheaper for everyone involved if the US just complied with the free and fair trade rules that it likes to impose on other nations, but hey, can't have everything.

There would be more losses to big casino companies (headed by healthy political donors) than $21mm/yr, if they opened up online gaming.

Exactly. It will be interesting to see if this approach actually has any effect. There aren't many sticks that work on the US.

Sensationalist title.

"Antiguan officials say they could make up the money through the operation of a copyright haven, although what that might look like and what its scope would be remains unclear. Antiguan officials have kept details vague and the move has little precedent."

While the U.S. is is a negligible export destination for Antigua ($9.1 million in 2012 [1], or 0.8% of Antigua & Barbuda's GDP), it is a significant source of imports (17% of GDP). This could produce the seed for regulatory innovation. But concluding anything yet is extremely premature.

[1] http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c2484.html

In an indirect but personal way, I'm seriously worried about this. My name is Chirag and for well over a decade now, I've shared my life, photos, projects, and art on http://chir.ag

I know .ly domains became a concern because of political turmoil in Libya. Is there anything I can do to keep my site (10k+ visitors/day) accessible if US decides to block all .ag domains? I haven't come across any famous .ag domains unlike bit.ly for .ly. Is there a chance my site could be blocked because of the domain name? I have nightly backups of all the data but the site has become so integral to my life (in addition to my email address), that I would be heartbroken if I have to give it up.

You're probably ok. I think the biggest issue with .ly domains was the Libyan government deciding that certain activities[1] were unacceptable on their TLD.

I don't think the Antiguan government is going to repossess anyone's domain names.

Also, I have to say that video of your ducks terrorizing the dog and cat is adorable and hilarious :)

[1] bare arms, etc. http://techyum.com/2010/10/official-vb-ly-link-shortener-sei...

Wow, small world! Didn't I meet you before sometime? Maybe at a Fark party in Florida?

Yup. I remember you. Was it racetrack or HoJos?

Sounds like Antigua is threatening the nuclear option over online gambling. I'm not clear what sort of jurisdiction (or influence) the US should have regarding gambling by American citizens in other countries, but it seems the simplest solution would simply be to legalize it in the US.

As a non-American, I've always wondered why online gambling is banned in the US. Is it simply because the casinos and other non-online sources were able to lobby to make it that way?

As far as I can tell, yes. This seems particularly clear in cases where states that have otherwise banned gambling run their own lotteries.

I think a lot of people don't consider the lottery gambling. Gambling is like a lot of vices. People want to do it, but they don't want other people doing it near their homes. Vegas and Indian casinos appear to be the nimby equilibrium point.

The hilarious part is that if the reasoning really is that one doesn't want to see it being done near their home, then online gambling is ideal. People would do it "in the privacy of their own homes", and I think you'd quickly find people preferring it to going to a building (due to ease and sheer variety). The brick and mortar places "attract riff raff" precisely because they are by definition concentrations of theoretically socially unacceptable behavior, which are then additionally usually combined with alcohol sale.

I believe the nimby stance against gambling is that it creates poverty. An opponent with such a stance might say something to the effect of "People are only keeping this in the privacy of their own homes until they run out of money. Then they start performing crimes in our neighborhood to feed their addiction."

I don't agree with this stance, but I've heard it made before.

Yeah, I don't really know where online gambling fits in. Though some people probably like that gambling is inconvenient because they have poor impulse control. "I want you to stop me from doing this thing I'm gonna want to do later before I regret it."

To get a gaming licence for an online gambling game in the UK, you need to provide a mechanism to allow players to block themselves from playing.

It's not hard to make that kind of requirement, if it were the real reason online gambling is restricted.

Not my monkey, not my circus.

Don't forget about gambling on horse and dog races.

Online gambling is not illegal in the US.

Transferring USD to an online gambling service is illegal.

Many gambling websites operate completely legally in the US using Bitcoins instead of USD.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-03/bitcoin-maki...

How long before someone gets taken down for this?

I could forsee some ambitious DA deciding that a BTC exchange was simply a way to launder dollars into online gambling and drug tokens...

Very interesting point of view, I have never thought about it that way. I think you're right.

To use a now-trite expression, "follow the money." Expressions of moral outrage (e.g. pity the poor gambling addicts) serve mostly as a smoke screen.

I always assumed it was because the US prefers that people gamble in the market rather than in the casino.

Would it be beneficial to legalize online gambling in the United States?

Massively, yes. We could start seriously betting on real-world events. It becomes harder to make crappy predictions ("If this bill isn't passed, crime will skyrocket!") when people can just check the going odds.

ETA: Much better explanation: http://squid314.livejournal.com/352406.html

Interesting.

Does something like that exist in other countries?

We've got this in Australia: http://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting/current-affairs But it's no-where near the level that article describes.

I worked next to the guys from Smarkets (https://smarkets.com) for a while. It looks like they're focussing heavily on sports betting now, but they'll do politics or media things when there's interest.

set up your own bitcoin betting site and host it in antigua

Not for us, apparently.

Reminds me of Islands in the Net by Bruce Sterling

Antigua is obviously a haven for terrorists and trafficking in WMDs. US invasion imminent.

it's the biggest honey pot that i ever seen!

What happens 5 minutes after this haven opens, and the $26 million in damages is compensation and then some?